One Question for Evo-Bashers

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff:

​

Please explain why there are no secular creationists ?

​

---

Because it's an oxymoron, you cannot realize and accept God and that "natural un-guided processes" were NOT the cause of the world, and remain "secular". Once the veil is lifted off your mind, you will invariably become a christian scientist (creationist).------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff:

But if Creation Science is truly science, then evidence is all that is required. It sounds as if you're adding requirements to Creation Science that regular 'secular' science does fine without.

​

How would " realiz(ing) and accept(ing) God as... the cause of the world" be scientifically verified ?
IOW, how is personal, subjective revelation a part of objective science ?
If one insists on including these parameters in their science, these parameters must be testable, verifyable or falsifyable.
Otherwise, what you have is no longer science.

​

regards,

​

jeff

​

---

Well, it's the "design argument", the evidence lies in the fact that we can conclude a Designer was behind the visible attributes we see around us.We have no problem realizing that cars, houses, watches, airplanes, etc etc, all have an intelligent designer behind them. How do we scientifically prove that? We can't see the designer, we don't know who they are, but we know with certainty, that those things did not arrange themselves from 1000's of individual parts, into an organized, specialized, and fully functioning machine, as it were, without careful planning, design, function, and intelligence behind it.I suppose that the "veil" comment was exactly related to that very problem.Best wishes,
Sonnikke------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

What you can do is trace the plane's, for example, origin back to the factory and the blueprints and the people who made the blueprints. We don't conclude that planes were designed because they "show evidence of design." We conclude they were designed because we know damn well what we build, how we build it, and what stuff we build looks like. It is pattern recognition.

​

---

There's no need to curse. Yes, you are correct, that's entirely possible, however, without going to all that trouble, it is still evident that a plane is designed simply by observing its features, mechanisms, layout, details, etc... deciphering a non designed object from a designed object is easy to do (ie. an eroded rock vs. a designed stone spearhead).Likewise, we can infer design in life.------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

"Damn" isn't cursing. God says it all the time.

---

I assume you're joking of course..

quote:

---

It wouldn't be evident if we didn't already have knowledge of our own designs. Take the example of tribal and isolated cultures thinking that planes are birds or gods. They don't assume, based on design characteristics, that such things were built by humans.

---

We are speculating here, and I would venture to say that even the most primitive tribe would recognize design, since they would have designs of their own (ie. spearheads) and could decipher the difference between a hut they built, and a pile of lumber that had washed ashore.

quote:

---

Because we have examples of both to compare. Since we can make comparisons between manufactured stone tools-- via wear patterns which indicate usage-- and naturally fragmented rock, we can determine that other rocks are or are not manufactured. However, it is worth noting that the most primative stone tools are debatably not chipped into any real pattern, but just broken in half and used as best as could be.

---

Again, we're speculating.

quote:

---

Which are the designed life forms and which are the not-designed ones? With the ability to make that comparison, there is no way to infer design.

---

I'm not 100% sure what you're saying here.Best wishes

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

We infer design based upon comparison with things that are not designed, like stone tools vs. rocks, or like a cave vs. an excavated shelter. We have no way to make this comparison with life in general. We need both known designed life forms and known not-designed lifeforms which we can then compare and work out the indicative differences between them. Then we can apply these differences to other life forms to determine if those are designed or not.

​

---

I see your point, however, as ToE concerns itself with extrapolating information about past events that were unwitnessed, to base current assumptions, it is likewise the natural conclusion based on the present known information, to infer design even without the comparison you mention.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

If we had cases of new organism being designed, formed, and plopped into the forest out of nowhere, then we could do exactly what you suggest and extrapolate from that data. We don't have new organisms popping into existence, but only animals that come from other animals. Whatever process formed the first life forms, has stopped.

​

---

Well arguably that process is what we creationists refer to as the creation.If you're looking for "new organism being designed, formed, and plopped", then look to the fossil record, 140+/- years of documented fully formed distinct creatures extracted from the earth, validating the record of the process you mentioned.We can infer design simply by common logic based on thousands of design cases in every day life, and if you really want, we can back it up by archaeologically verified ancient documents describing the creation event by an intelligent Designer.Regards,
S

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

The fossil record does not show what you think it shows.

---

Refresh my memory, there are about 250,000,000 catalogued fossils correct? And, arguably a handful of "transitionals".

quote:

---

You can't seriously be making this argument. Sure we can back it up. We can back up several dozen creation-by-intelligent-designer events using archeologically verified documents. Do you accept al of those accounts? Or just one?

---

I accept the holy bible.Regards,
S

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

So, because we know, say, computers are desinged today, and we know that, say, the pyramids were designed, therefore, it is logical to say that biological entities were also designed...

​

I see....

​

And all animals are human, too....

---

Why is that unreasonable in your opinion?
Speaking of the pyramids, I'm not sure what the latest news is, but I know that they have been the topic of discussion for many years, as to who and how? etc...It was never assumed by anyone that they were NOT designed, even though it happened in ancient times. Design was obvious.Why is it so unreasonable to correlate known design with apparant design?p.s. Correction, animals are NOT human

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

Well, you are almost there. 250,000,000 catalogued fossils (I'm accept your number, as it doesn't matter) and ALL OF THEM TRANSITIONAL.

---

I don't even know how to respond to such an outrageous assertion.... So if I were to visit ALL the museums in the world, according to you John ALL the fossils on display will be part one species and part another.
There won't be fish or frogs etc, but rather fish w/ legs, frogs w/ ?? who knows....To be honest, unless your definition of transitional is COMPLETELY different, what you said is more preposterous than anything I've yet heard.If I were an evolutionist and you were a creationist, I'm pretty sure the mockery would have been immense."A theory that explains everything explains nothing"

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

Species is a concept that we have made up. It doesn't exist the way you think it does. Imagine a color spectum like artists use. At one end is black and the other is white and between the two all the various colors grade from one to the other. Pick any point on that line and it is identifiably different from any other point. Red vs. green, for example. Blue vs. yellow. But if you start at one point you can travel the whole line and encounter no sharp transitions between colors. All of the colors are transitional between the one before and the one after it. This is what you have in the fossil record. All of the fossils are transitional between the one before and the one after it. But we don't have the entire spectrum, so there appears to be hard breaks, just like when you select two colors from some difference away, like blue and yellow. Species is a name we give to 'colors' that are within a tolerable distance from one another, and biologists can't agree on exactly how to make the distinction. The concept of species is artificial in this way.

​

Nope. Frogs are transitional between what came before them and what will come after. Each GENERATION is transitional between the previous generation and the next generation. There are small changes that are not dtectable until you look at hundreds or thousands of genrations.

​

It is your understanding of evolution that is preposterous.

​

Actually..... not. Nothing I have said isn't basic evolutionary biology. The analogy needs to be qualified to include PE and branching, but that's about it.

​

---

That's slick but totally absurd. By admission that the changes are so minute as to be indistinguishable, and hence the different species don't show the intermediary characteristics, it seems you have destroyed any chance for a species actually evolving to another species. Also, theories like punctuated equilibrium concocted by seemingly intelligent scientists, are rendered invalid and almost certainly comedic.As stated previously, and by comparison, if your colour analogy should be accepted, any design analogy should be likewise.Regards,
S

John, I get the colour analogy, but it doesn't cut it. If it were true, we should find 1000's of fossils of reptiles gradually evolving to birds, at the different stages from reptile to fully bird. Instead we find reptile, and we find bird, no in betweens. The fossil record would be one giant "colour spectrum" with gradual in between stages documented, NOT 250,000,000 distinct "colours".Regards,
S

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

Well that is where you have to step out of the ideal and into the practical. Not all things that die fossilize. If it doesn't fossilize we don't dig it up. Thus, the fossil record is imperfect. We don't get the whole spectrum, but only bits and pieces of it. There is nothing anyone can do about this.

​

---

That is just a bit too conveeeeeeeeeeenient. Try this, the fossil record IS complete enough that there should easily be loads of fossils ranging from, say, 100% reptile, to 95% reptile 5% bird, 90% reptile 10% bird, etc. until we reach 100% bird 0% reptile. We should be able to have many displays like this in the museums, where people could see the gradual changes as one species changed to another...and then the case would be closed...but that's not what we have, why? because "unfortunately" the record isn't complete. Sorry, no sell.2ndly, if we start discussing fossilization, everybody agrees that it does not happen with the processes we currently have (ie. 2.4" sedimentation a year). It requires rapid burial away from destructive agents, which very much lends evidence to a global flood.Regards,
S

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

Animals don't morph from one form to another like Transformers©. You can't take an ancestral species and a modern species and average them to get the in-betweens. So finding your percentage this and percentage that is silly. Think about this (purely hypothetical): imagine a mouse and then imagine that selection favors longer legs. Eventually, you end up with a tiny rabbit. Then selection favors size, so it grows to the size of a cat, then a large dog, then a kangaroo. At which point is it half-mouse and half-kangaroo-like-thing?

---

There's your key..."imagination"...it is only in the imaginary fantasy world that a mouse would become a rabbit....if you don't have step by step gradual changes, it undermines your whole theory.Regards,
S